I use Gumout Multi-System Tune up in my 2013 Grand Sport. I have never used the Techron, so I can't really add to this thread other than I found a different product that seems to work. I don't use the Gumout it because the advertising...It seems to actually work. The exhaust tips are not as dirty, the idle seems smoother & it seems to pull harder.
Gum Out Multi System Tune Up

( )

 

I don't think so.

A quick search keeps routing me to a lukoil. Maybe they're joint partnership now idk.

After that 2011? or 2010? thing with lukoil i will NEVER drive into that station. Even in a car that's not mine. And i don't care if lukoil made it on the top tier list.

I'll stick with shell.

 

I've heard the above before. Matter of fact, as a side note, I've investigated "top tier" (not sure it's "top" anything except maybe a new marketing methodology), I found that Sunoco is not top tier. But Costco is.

My area doesn't have any Chevron or Texaco stations. At one point, there were about two of each but they are long gone---maybe five years ago. I use Techron Fuel Syst. clner. It's ok for my use.

 

There’s lots of misinformation in this thread. I’m a retired chemical engineer who spent a career with a major oil company, and I know fuels and lubes and their effects on cars. While base gasolines are similar, as are the EPA-mandated minimum additives in the cheapo brands, all of the top tier brands have their own specific and proprietary additive packages that must prove through actual engine testing that they keep engines much cleaner than the standard packages. Top tier was started by car companies to reduce their warranty costs, not oil companies to sell gas. It does make a difference. I’ve seen engines torn down after 50000 miles on various gas, and you can see it with your eyeballs and then confirm it with actual weight of deposits on various internal engine parts.

It is possible to overdose on additives, so if you put Techron on top of a gas that is already top tier, you are probably hurting rather than helping. It would be kind of like putting 3 times the recommended amount of soap in your washing machine. More is not necessarily better.

On ethanol, almost all gas is still E10, not E15, and other than the roughly 3-5% mileage penalty, there is no reason to avoid it. Almost all the horror stories relate to long term storage where you can get in trouble if you don’t use a stabilizer and the temperature turns much colder than when you filled up. Sure, there are a few stories that don’t relate to that issue, but there are also a few about ethanol free gas. There’s not much difference in risk to your engine other than the stated mileage penalty and need for stabilizer for long term storage with dropping tempeature.

I’ve written about these topics many times in past threads, so am not going to repeat them all in detail here. If you have a specific question, I’ll probably respond, but if you just want more general information, search for my posts, most of which are on gas and oil.

 

So am I ok running Chevron 91 octane in my Vette always. In Az we don't have 93 octane but every other gas up I add Torco to raise the octane level...

 

Soo... Everybody on here is saying I can pump AM/PM Arco/ Smartmart 91 gasoline often?

Pump only Chevron 91 with Techron every 1500-3000 miles to clean the injectors?

If I can save money at the pump why not?

 

Costco 91 octane gas has a cleaner in it. I think it has Techron in it.....

 

The standard engine is tuned for 91, and the knock sensor will protect it down to 87, so if you have a standard Vette, you are perfectly OK with 91. Octane booster is a waste of money for that engine. It will not give even the slightest bit of extra performance. If you have a Z06 or ZR1, those engines are tuned for 93, and the knock sensor will protect them down to 91. So in those two engines, while octane booster is not needed and will not give any added engine protection or safety, it will give a slight improvement in performance. But I wouldn’t see any logic to using it every other tank. Seems like you should either use it or not use it. Using it on one tank doesn’t have carry-over benefit to the next tank.
Detergents have cumulative effects, so an engine run consistently on top tier will be cleaner than one run on cheapo gas part of the time and top tier part of the time. They do have some “catch-up” benefits, so the engine run partly on cheapo and partly on top tier will be cleaner than one run on all cheapo. But all top tier is best. Running top tier plus added Techron is too much detergent. Detergents themselves leave teeny amounts of deposits just from detergent residue. The amount of detergent already in top tier keeps things as clean from normal deposits as they are going to get. So there is nothing more to clean up by adding even more detergent, and adding that extra detergent will add detergent residue deposits. So the engine run on top tier plus added Techron will be slightly dirtier than an engine on top tier because it will have that teeny bit of extra detergent residue deposits.

 

So there really are no benefits of ethanol other than to the Iowa corn lobby? It's lower price is offset by it's lower gas mileage results, and if you don't drive your Corvette every day and only fill up the tank once every month or every other month, we don't need that crap in our Vette tanks breaking down the fuel.

The Corvette Action Center did a good article on fuels in your Corvette, and they said they have used Redline SI-1 in both old and new model engines with excellent results.

http://www.corvetteactioncenter.com/tech/gas/gas3.html

 

I don’t see anything in that article that changes anything I said. There are absolutely no conditions of any kind where ethanol “breaks down” gasoline. Even the risk of long term storage when temperatures are dropping exists with ethanol free gasoline too. It is simply that the problem is somewhat worse with ethanol since ethanol can dissolve more water. All gasoline, both with and without ethanol, contains a very small amount of dissolved water. What can happen is that when temperature drops, such as in winter storage, less water will dissolve, so it can come out of solution. Then you can have a small water layer in the bottom of your tank that can give problems. But remember, the very same thing can happen with ethanol free gasoline. The only slight difference is that if it happens, the water layer will be slightly larger if the gasoline contains ethanol. Stabilizer prevents this from happening, and is wise to use for long term storage both with and without ethanol. But since the problem, if it occurs, is slightly worse with ethanol, it is slightly more important to use stabilizer in storage with ethanol.

The cost and politics are something else. I don’t like ethanol either, and that is the reason. But let’s keep our dislike of ethanol where it belongs, on the cost and politics, not on urban lore horror stories that aren’t true. Ethanol has the frustrating distinction of being a program that both parties support for all the wrong reasons. Democrats support it because they incorrectly think it helps air pollution. Republicans support it because their supporters in the farm states and the ethanol manufacturing lobby tell them to. Too bad one of the vanishingly few places they cooperate is a boondoggle like ethanol.

As far as the Redline additive, my comments about Techron apply to it too. If you use top tier, adding additional stuff will make you very slightly worse off. All detergents leave behind tiny amounts of detergent residue. So if you are already as clean as detergents can make you, then adding more detergents makes you slightly worse off by the small amount of detergent residue that they add.

 

Thank you LDB
NSF

 

I did the Arco thing from about 5,500 miles until the gas gauge failed at 8,000. After the warranty repair and reading about the problem here, I run only Chevron where it's available and top tier in the parts of the country where Chevron doesn't exist. Currently at 125K and never any recurring problems. I'm not saying Arco was the problem or Chevron is best, but only relating my C6 experience. YMMV.

Don't let small change get in the way of enjoying a high performance car.

 

Ah, the voice of reason. For a change, someone who knows what the hell their talking about.

However, don't get him started on ethanol.

 

Guilty, and it’s even a double threat rant. Not only can I rant against the economic and enviromental stupidity of ethanol that’s equally supported by both our political parties, I can also rant against those who peddle horror story silliness about how it wrecks engines. Bottom line, it’s a truly dumb idea that benefits only farmers and rich industrialists, but on the other hand, it’s not a significant risk to the health of your car.

 

I have a chainsaw in which I put the proper mixture of oil and gasoline, then did a no-no ... after I was finished using it I left the gas in the tank. The next year, I couldn't get it to start. I checked the fuel line inside the tank and it literally fell apart in my hands. I blame it on the ethanol. Is that a legitimate blame? Or just my shoddy maintenance of the thing, and would have done the same thing with ethanol-free gasoline?

 

I had the dreaded gas gauge problem a couple of times in my c5. I would fill up the tank with Chevron (with Techron) and the gauge problem would go away . I haven't tried it in my c6 yet . no problems with it yet .

 

You're right! My bad...


Thanks for the correction
ETA:
The % E I initially stated was incorrect, as mentioned. But E is not an engines friend, especially when introduced to an older engine. It's a great solvent, and thus has caused problems when first introduced. And when the switch from MTBE to E was made, there were big problems. The mixing of BOTH makes a nasty component you don't want in your fuel system, and there were more problems when the switch to E as an oxygenate was made. But now that many have suffered financial loss and damage, those problems have basically worked their way through and now not much is made of it (high-end boat maker Bertram used fiberglass fuel tanks in their boats, and E dissolved the resins & solvents causing fuel leaks [fuel leaks in a boat can cause explosions and death]).

The current blends actually store better than earlier fuels, in that much of the components such as olefins have been reduced for emissions. They were responsible for much of the gumming of old fuel which used to occur.

Ethanol is added at the truck, when fuel is loaded. Early problems with accurate mixtures were wide spread, but I'm not aware of much of that recently. E can't be shipped via pipeline, has to be rail tanked in. It has a propensity to absorb water, and once saturated, the gasoline separates with the much lower octane mixture settling in the bottom of the tank resulting in problems (going to the fuel pick up). Many outboard engines were destroyed due to this. Boats are obviously more prone to have water contaminating the fuel.

If you keep your tank full, minimize the temperature swings and add fresh fuel when needed, today's fuels can be stored one year in dry mild climates, such as NorCal.

Many websites can found that list gasoline available without E, but the volume is extremely low, and a lot of them are basically race fuel suppliers; at least in CA. Refineries can't make money when producing a special, small blend of non-E fuel, as all of the blends are meant to be ON-TEST (RBOB and CARBOB) after the E is blended. Plus it is mandated that resellers have 10%E. Prior to that mandate Chevron could make the CARB specs using only 5.7%E, but the law now mandates 10%E.

E is here to stay, no doubt. But I don't have to like it...especially when there are much better oxygenates that could have been used.

A board member from Chevron became the CEO of ConAgra, and I always wondered if that influenced the E mandate...

I'm not a chemist or an engineer, just a guy who makes fuels and has a casual interest. If I'm wrong (again), don't hesitate to point it out...
_________________
PS I'm glad no one mentioned ULSD, LOL....

 

There’s not enough info to say with confidence what your problem was. You easily could have had the fuel/water separation problem without stabilizer, and that would have been worse with ethanol than without. But fuel/water separation by itself shouldn’t cause the fuel line to disintegrate unless it got cold enough to freeze the line. If it got that cold, the water separation would have been nearly guaranteed, and the water would have frozen and broken the line just like a water pipe freezes. But if it didn’t get that cold, and especially if it’s an old chainsaw, you may have a case where the fuel line wasn’t compatible with ethanol. By law, fuel systems in all cars have been fully compatible since about 1990 (I forget the exact year), and most cars were fully compatible way before that, since the mid 70’s.

Since we agree on not liking ethanol I don’t want to get into a big fight, but on the whole, I think you are going overboard on your concerns. Ethanol is added in large blend tanks at distribution terminals, not at the truck itself, so blend ratio errors are somewhere between extremely rare and nonexistent. I don’t know of any special problems as ethanol replaced MTBE. That doesn’t guarantee that absolutely none ever happened, but it certainly wasn’t widespread or I’d have heard about it. Olefins reduction is small except for California’s, and theirs was somewhere around 1990 (again, I forget the exact date), but not recent. I don’t claim to know much about boat fuel systems so can’t comment on your Bertram story, but certainly no cars used fiberglass fuel tanks or had explosion hazards. I’m not aware that any better oxygenates are out there, except of course for eliminating the oxygenate requirement entirely. Here’s a tiny bit of history on that one. When they first started requiring oxygenates, cars used carburetors with no feedback loop on air/fuel ratio. In that setup, the same thing that causes ethanol to give poorer mileage (the fact that it has less energy per gallon) made it run leaner, which in turn really did reduce pollution. But once fuel injection with air/fuel feedback loop replaced carburetors in the late 80’s, oxygenates no longer affect air to fuel stoichiometry and therefore no longer have any effect on emissions. Anyway, we do agree on some things. We dislike ethanol in gas. We also agree on some of the reasons we dislike it, the economic/political aspects. Our disagreement is that you see major performance-related issues, and I don’t.

 

Listen to this guy, folks... he knows what he's talking about. Like LDB, I have spent 30 years in the industry working for the largest international integrated O&G company in the country, mostly in the global engineering organizations in the wholesale supply and distribution end of the business. Terminals, pipelines, lube blending & packaging plants, etc etc. In fact, most of us on this board use my company's synthetic motor oil! Thanks for your business...

I have dealt with the reformulated fuel and oxegenate mandates for many many years. Don't even get me started on the fact that ethanol is a net contributor to greenhouse gas when you consider the diesel fuel (much of it very high in sulphur) burned to produce it, transport it (can't be pipelined) and the fact that it is not as efficient as gasoline.

One small correction, though, LDB. Not all distributors tank blend ethanol. Many blend the ethanol as it is loaded on the truck at the terminal. This allows for custom blends as well as an ability to fix an off-spec blend much easier than blending down an entire tank. This is the case with company that I work for.

 

When my fuel gauge quit in my 96 I used it in a couple of refills and it freed it up and it started working again